Request for OFFICIAL clarification on services 2.0 cost scaling
I am creating this discussion because many of us are seeking a clear and direct answer regarding the long term plan for Services 2.0 and specifically the cost structure tied to essential utilities and facility upgrades.
At this point the concern is no longer just emotional frustration. It is financial feasibility within the game economy. A significant number of long established cities are facing infrastructure costs that dramatically exceed realistic revenue generation under the new scaling model. Players are selling assets draining reserves and in many cases spending real money simply to restore services that were previously stable. Even after doing so many remain far from meeting required thresholds before the grace period ends.
This raises a straightforward but critical question. Has the development team actively considered reducing the upgrade and maintenance costs for core services such as power water sewage waste management police fire and health. Or is the current economic model the intended permanent direction for the game.
The issue is not resistance to change. The issue is proportionality. When essential infrastructure costs appear to outpace sustainable income growth becomes a liability rather than an achievement. That shifts the game from strategic city building into financial strain management. If this direction is intentional it should be communicated transparently. If it is not then recalibration should be openly acknowledged as under review.
The volume and consistency of feedback across the forums suggests this is not isolated dissatisfaction. It reflects widespread structural instability following the update. Silence during this period increases uncertainty and fuels speculation about the intent behind the cost escalation.
Players who have invested years into their cities are not asking for advantages. We are asking for clarity. Is cost reduction being evaluated. Is revenue scaling being adjusted. Is additional compensation being considered for heavily impacted cities.
Clear communication would stabilize confidence far more effectively than continued uncertainty. We simply need to know whether rebuilding under the current cost structure is realistically achievable or if adjustments are forthcoming.
